The ethic of irresponsibility

Omar Abdullah, the telegenic chief minister of Jammu & Kashmir, certainly has many faults, but discourtesy cannot be counted among them. His record as CM is mixed at best, and this blog has always regarded young dynasts with cynicism. But throughout his political career (now over a decade in frontline politics), the son of Farooq and grandson of Sheikh Abdullah has displayed a commitment to civility that is all-too-rare in our public discourse. This commitment lends itself to effective bipartisanship (a concept virtually unheard of in today's Indian political scene). The present situation in J & K, the worst since the summer troubles of 2008, owes more than a little to Omar's inexperience and lack of political skill. But his decision to call an All-Parties' Meet is, I think, an admirable one.

Unfortunately, this meet is rendered meaningless by the decision of the Leader of the Opposition, Mehbooba Mufti of the People's Democratic Party (PDP)- and, by extension, her father, alcoholic former CM Mufti Mohammad Sayeed- not to attend the conference. This is despite the intervention of the Prime Minister, who called Mehbooba to implore her to attend.

The PDP argues that to attend would give the Omar Abdullah government undue legitimacy. But it already has that legitimacy, in the form of a clear electoral mandate and a significant (coalition) majority in the assembly. By continuing to call for the premature resignation of an elected government, by using the politics of street populism over responsible parliamentarianism, the PDP is just as guilty, if not more, than the National Conference (no matter how incompetent its decisions, such as requesting Army help in Srinagar, are judged) of failing to solve the present malaise.

The abdication of its duty by the elected opposition is an utterly pervasive disease in Indian politics. It is visible most noticeably, of course, at the Lok Sabha level, where the Opposition inevitably chooses the parliamentary boycott or, failing that, the Bharat bandh, over the legislative debate. Yet it is equally true in every state in the country. It is just that Mehbooba's abdication of this duty is likely to have disastrous and even bloody consequences, so fragile is any state of peace in the Valley. All our states would benefit from bipartisanship and a responsible Opposition, but without these things, Kashmir is always in danger of a return to outright chaos.

The Great Renunciation

In response to Keshava's post 'School Textbooks: India's no-spin zone' (01/19/2009)

I could not agree more with Keshava when he criticizes the governments decision to set up the salwa judum movement and arm unemployed young men in an attempt to fight the naxalite threat. When any government, any where sets up vigilante groups to deal with security threats, it indulges in the ultimate abdication from responsibility. The people of naxalite affected districts defy boycott calls and an unimaginably high risk of violence to come out and vote not for a government that gives them arms and ammunition to fight their own battles, but one that can, among things, allow them to go into their fields without fear of being shot, allow their children to go to school without fear of being kidnapped. When a government decides to abdicate responsibility in this regard it is not just wrong, it is criminal.

What is tragic is that the Indian government is guilty of this sort of abdication not just in Chhatisgarh but in wide swathes of the country. In Kashmir the government armed those with any sort of grudge against the militants and made 'renegades' of them. Popularly known as Ikhwani's, these renegades were largely responsible for widespread human rights violations and for losing India's battle for the hearts and minds of thousands of Kashmiris. In large tracts of the cow belt, thugs like Raja Bhaiyya and Mohammad Shahbuddin controlled, till very recently, almost the entire administration. This was not because the government couldn't move in. It is because the government was quite happy letting other people do its job.

In some form or the other, all across India, authorities elected or appointed to perform a particular task simply don't do it. With elections coming up, those who lustily sing the Indian democracy's praises while ignoring its many flaws would do well to remember this fact.

Aazadi?

Basharat Peer's first book, Curfewed Night, is reportedly flying off racks in bookshops across the country, and I can see why. To be extremely brief, the book is about Kashmir. But it is not a strictly political or military account, nor is it a historical account seeking to determine whether Kashmir really should be a part of India or not. It is instead a book which tells stories, stories of ordinary people, people who are tortured, who are forced to leave their homes, whose lives are ruined; stories of girls who remain unmarried because there are no men left to marry, of parents who wished they had daughters because their sons never came home. As an Indian, it is painful reading Curfewed Night. It is painful because Peer says things that most Indians don't want to hear. Through his stories he says that Kashmirs don't want to be a part of India, that the Indian military has committed human rights abuses on an unparalleled scale in Kashmir. He even talks about how Kashmirs cheer for any team, even England, when they are playing against India. And he writes in a manner in which you feel he is saying nothing but the truth. Curfewed Night is, I believe, compulsory reading for every Indian.

How then do we reconcile Curfewed Night with what happened in Srinagar today. Omar Abdullah was sworn in as Chief Minister after an election in which more than 60% of the electorate braved the sub zero temperatures to come out and vote. A 60% turn out is impressive anywhere in the world. It is unprecedented in Kashmir. The vote threw up, as expected, a hung assembly. In the Jammu region, the BJP, riding on the Amarnath controversy made great gains. The valley remained split between the PDP and Abdullah's NC. And the Congress, playing kingmaker as it did last time round, decided to support the NC. I shall not discuss here why voters voted the way they did or why the Congress acted the way it did. Instead I wish to ask what such a high turnout means for the future of Kashmir.

Here is what I think it does not mean. It does not mean that support for separatism is dead. It does not mean that Kashmirs have given up on their demand for 'aazadi'. It does not mean that Kashmirs like India. A look back at the protests in Srinagar last summer bears testimony to this fact.

But it does mean that India should not get out of Kashmir (despite whatever various journalists might have had to say last summer), that Kashmirs want their basic grievances addressed, that the Abdullahs have genuine support in Kashmir, especially in rural areas, and that the Hurriyat must move quickly if it wants to remain relevant in peoples minds.

And here is why it does mean all of the above:

Why should we not give Kashmir up? Because we have no one to give it up to. The people of Kashmir do not want to be a part of Pakistan. They have shown by this vote more than anything else that they have faith in democracy. What democracy will they get in Pakistan? Their Kashmiri brothers in PoK remain controlled by Islamabad. All elections in PoK are an eyewash. To join Pakistan would mean substituting rule from Delhi with rule from Islamabad, and much as Peer may write about Kashmiris cheering Pakistani cricket teams, I think even he would agree that some form of local democracy is better than none at all.

Why do Kashmiris want basic grievances addressed? Because for close on 20 years, they have been systematically ignored as Kashmir has turned into a battleground between the military and the militants. A boycott of elections is useless because the Hurriyat (which calls for it) doesn't talk about development. It only talks of freedom. Talk of freedom is fine, but what happens when you cant find a job, get 2 square meals a day, don't have proper access to health care? The people of Kashmir may desire freedom. But they also desire development, and hence the vote.

The support for the Abdullah's has not diminished, no matter how many times Farooq presses the self destruct button. And the Abdullah's do provide a credible alternative to the Hurriyat. If the Hurriyat were to enter elections, they may not get more seats than the NC and the PDP.

For all these reasons the Hurriyat must move to remain relevant. (By the Hurriyat here I mean the moderate wing). They must enter the Indian political setup and campaign for their demands from within. The voters have already legitimized the Indian system of democracy, even if they haven't reconciled themselves to permanent Indian rule. Yet will the Hurriyat act? I believe that their lack of widespread support outside the major cities like Srinagar, and the fact that many of the Hurriyat leaders have their fingers in the pie, (Kashmir receives huge amounts of money from the centre, certainly this doesn't trickle down to the masses and the Hurriyat leaders live in palaces. Do the arithmetic yourself) prevents them from doing so.

While many Kashmiris may desire their land to become a Switzerland of the East, I think most understand that that is impossible in the near future. An independent Kashmir would have to be guaranteed by at least India, China, Pakistan and the US. When these countries cant agree on anything right now, what hope is there for them to agree on Kashmir. The fact that they have voted in such high number is thus a positive sign. The government must make good on its promises, the army must strive to interfere as little as possible with daily life in Kashmir, and ultimately relations with Pakistan must improve so that the LoC can become an open border and economic ties can strengthen between the two Kashmirs.